This is not a review of Professor MacDonald's excellent essay about Raciology and I do not mean to put words in his mouth. I am simply using MacDonald's essay as a jumping off point, and I am doing so precisely because his essay is so good that I hope some who read what I've written below will then, if they haven't already, read MacDonald's essay to get to the real meat of some of the deeper reasons for the problems we Whites face in our traditional nations that now look like the Star Wars Bar. MacDonald's essay is so good, that it really can stand completely on its alone apart from the book for which it is the foreword.

In his essay,Professor MacDonald posits the notion that Whites often act against White interests because we Whites were selected over the centuries (via natural selection) in colder climates where a surfeit of individual responsibility and a lack of group cohesion worked better for our individual survival.

In other words Whites evolved to not feel very "White," but to have a hyper-individualistic and universalistic world view and to look at and accept individuals of other races as the same as individual Whites, if they perhaps shared interests or philosophies or other products of the mind rather than relying on common genes to indicate who is us and who is not us. This faux "kinship" based on artificial things substituted for the natural and authentic kinship based on genetic closeness and it prevented these Whites from seeing themselves as part of an in-group of truly like individuals whose welfare as a group was important to each individual White as a White. This was and is a universalistic world view rather than a particularistic world view. Instead of saying "Is it good for Whites?" many Whites say "Is it good for humanity, or the earth, or the environment."

And, with this universalistic outlook from our past still part of our beings, Whites today fail to see that Whiteshelping other Whites--and seeing ourselves and other Whites as part of an in-group--a particularistic outlook--would tend to also help individual Whites as well.

MacDonald correctly contrasts this idea of hyper-individualism of Whites with the group consciousness of other groups of humans, and in particular Jews,as evidenced in the question, supposedly asked of everything by Jews with a strong in-group sense: "Is it good for the Jews?"

However, the in-group attitude of Jews is not exclusive to them. We see it in every other non-White group that we can think of. For example, we found it laughable that so many White "conservatives" were surprised that Blacksvoted overwhelmingly for one of their own-Barack Obama for president. These out of touch White conservatives with their hyper-individualistic mind set apparently thought (and still do) that all individual humans think as they do and have no in-group loyalties based on race/ethnicity. That they are very wrong still hasn't dawned on many of them.

Even today, after they failed to understand the in-group nature of votes for Obama, we see many White GOP "conservative" leaders who still believe that Hispanics, Blacks and Asians will vote for a White, over a Blackor Hispanic or Asianwho is of the same race/ethnicity as them, if the White just panders to them or if the White just has the right ideas.

Today, it seems that White hyper-individualism is working against the survival of Whitesas mass transportation has now brought millions of non-Whites (with their non-White in-group ways and beliefs) to formerly all White lands where, under modern conditions and racially/ethnically mixed societies and nations, the in-group survival mechanism works better than hyper-individualism. So, we constantly read about Whites--individual Whites--falling victim to non-White criminals and to various affirmative action type programs that harm Whites while helping non-Whites and we see scant outrage at these offenses against Whites, perhaps because when Whites read about them, they don't think these offenses are against Whiteness, per se, but just against some individual Whites who they don't know and who they don't care about.

It is certainly not unknown that a survival strategy that worked at one time under certain conditions may not work under new conditions.

For example, it is well known that opossums (let's just call them by their common name: possums) have a built in automatic and unconscious survival mechanism that causes them to appear to be dead when they are frightened.

This survival mechanism worked fine prior to modern times when the main enemies of possums were animals that wanted to eat them, but whose own survival mechanism evolved to have them avoid already dead animals..

But today, it seems that the major enemies of possumsare automobiles. A possum that plays dead in front of a car will just be run over. And, there is now anecdotal information that seems to indicate that urban possums maybe evolving away from the playing dead strategy (a strategy, by the way, which is involuntary) and that there may be a new breed of possumsthat has evolved that doesn't play dead when frightened, but just runs away and out of the path of oncoming cars.

How is this evolution working with possums, if indeed this is going on? Presumably in the usual way--natural selection. Once genes arise with the run-away strategy, they are naturally selected over the play-dead genes. It's very simple. The possumsthat get run over don't live to breed more of their kind with their play-dead genes, and those possums that have the run-away genes simply run out of the way of cars and live to breed more possums with their run-away genes. In time, the run-away genes, may completely replace the play-dead genes. This ability to adapt to new conditions while remaining as the essential organism that one was before the adaptation is worth another column. Later.

Now, back to the Jews. My observations of Jewish behavior indicates that they generally lack a strong sense of oneness with other individual Jews, and, in fact, are often contemptuous of other Jews and very competitive with them, but they generally have a strong esprit de corps for Jewishness, per se. It is as though they are all players on a sports team, and while they squabble and compete within the locker room, they all have a strong allegiance to the team as a whole. With Whites, on the other hand, we see the same attitudes towards other individual Whites as we see from Jews towards other individual Jews, but with Whites, we lack that sense of a team allegiance, so Whites will not only be contemptuous of other Whites as individuals but we'll also be contemptuous of us even comprising a team at all. The result of this for Whites is that it puts every White out on his own with no protections from the White group as a whole. This worked once, when our lands were mainly White, but it now puts us at a disadvantage as we can be picked off one by one by those who hate us and who are on the other teams and who act for the benefit of their particular teams.

This brings a question to mind unbidden: Will Whites be able to adapt to modern conditions--like possums--but through the conscious use of our wills--and evolve a new strategy that works for our survival, or will we just continue to be run over with our hyper-individualistic out of date individualistic survival strategy? To put a point on this: Will Whites be able to switch to an in-group strategy, get rid of universalistic views, and adopt particularistic ones? Will we hear Whites saying: "Is it good for Whites?"And, will we see Whites working for White interests? To get there, we are going to have to stop apologizing for Whiteness and we're going to have to stop letting other groups fragment us by calling Whites with White consciousness racist.

We're reminded, in writing the above about the hyper-individualism of Whites, of the column we wrote about the various ethnic legislative caucuses in Sacramento and the complete absence of a White LegislativeCaucus.This certainly, seems to fit in with MacDonald's notion.

Here's one version of that just mentioned column about a lack of a White Legislative Caucus. In this version, I even dropped the word "White" in the title in an attempt to get a newspaper to publish the column, but they were on to us and didn't want to have anything to do with a column that trumpeted Whiteinterests--as White interests.Of course, they have no problem in praising the various other ethnic caucuses.

EUROPEAN-AMERICANS NEED A CAUCUS IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

by H. Millard

It was recently announced that State Senator Marty Block, (D-San Diego), started the Legislative Jewish Caucus and that this caucus will also form a political action committee to raise money for Israel-friendly candidates. Block told the press that the Legislative Jewish Caucus "isn't a religious based organization. We see this as an ethnic organization." This statement was presumably made to both forestall Muslims from starting a Muslim Legislative Caucus and also to head off complaints that the Legislative Jewish Caucus is breaching the wall between religion and state.

These caucuses work, sometimes behind the scenes and out of public view, to represent the interests of their ethnic/racial groups. They write legislation and take other actions on behalf of their particular ethnic/racial groups even though the people they are acting on behalf of may not live in their districts. In other words, unlike the traditional American political notion that people elected to public office represent a specific geographic area, these ethnic caucus members represent "their people," no matter where they live in the state.

An example of what the members of these ethnic/racial caucuses do was presented in the Daily Pilot recently in a story about State Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, a member of the Latino Legislative Caucus, who has authored a bill that would force cities such as Costa Mesa to end city wide voting and replace it with district voting. District voting is a scheme that will lead to gerrymandered districts in Costa Mesa, in an attempt to include Latino voters in certain districts and exclude White voters from the districts.

On the welcome page of the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus we read this: "[T]he Caucus was founded in 2001 and serves to represent and advocate for the interests of the APIA community...."

On the Website of the Latino Legislative Caucus we read: "The Mission of the California Latino Legislative Caucus is to identify, promote and advocate on behalf of the professional, educational, social, political and cultural interests of the Latino Community."

And, on the Website of the Legislative Black Caucus we read: "The continuing mission of the CLBC is to provide our unwavering commitment and support to our goal of achieving full inclusion of our state’s Africans American residents in every aspect of California life – from education and employment to housing and health to commerce and government services."

So, there you have it. Four ethnic/racial organizations all advocating for the interests of their people. Who advocates for White people? No one.

Now, some who haven't kept up with the news may say that a White Legislative Caucus isn't needed because Whites are in the majority in the state. Actually, we're not. Latinos have ether reached numbers parity or have exceeded the size of the White population. Some others may argue that Whites are not an ethnicity, but a race, and that we shouldn't lump the various White ethnicities (or people who originated in many different European nations) together under one rubric such as White. Well, the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus lumps various Asian and Pacific Islander populations together, and the Legislative Black Caucus is based on race.

I'll ask and answer this question once again: Who represents Whites and White interests? No one.

It's time to change that. Will we now see some White legislators start a White Legislative Caucus? Probably not. Why? Because Whites have been so brow beaten about race that it seems many are even afraid to order a gallon of white paint at the hardware store lest they be called racist. The result of this racial intimidation that Whites have undergone for years is that Whites are left without any real representation for their particular interests (and we have many) in the state legislature.

Those timid souls who are so brow beaten that they run from the word "white," can simply use the term European-American if it makes them feel more comfortable.

All three books are now listed on Amazon.com.
Just click on the "http://www..." links after each book.
They're also available at quality brick and mortar stores or can be ordered by them for you.

The lefties at the OC WEEKLY said Millard is one of OC's most frightening people.

"Millard is an important writer" New Nation News

"Millard is an original. His books aren't like your typical fiction.
If you don't know where to put his books, try the same shelf with Kerouac,
Kafka, Sartre and Nietzsche" - a reader.

"I consider H. Millard one of the most brilliant writers and analysts
in the European American civil rights movement."
- David Duke

Ourselves Alone & Homeless Jack's Religion
messages of ennui and meaning in post-american america by H. Millard
In Ourselves Alone and Homeless Jack's Religion, H. Millard, the hard to pigeonhole author of The Outsider and Roaming the Wastelands, has put together some of his category bending commentaries on post-American America. The commentaries deal with politics, philosophy, free speech, genocide, religion and other topics in Millard's edgy style and lead up to Homeless Jack's Religion, in which Homeless Jack lays out revelations he found in a dumpster on skid row. Browse Before You BuyISBN: 0-595-32646-3